Armitage admits he was Novak's source
#101
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by classicman2
I don't agree with that. A President can be in control of his administration and not every detail of what's going on. I seriously doubt that any President has ever known everything that's going on in their adminstration.
He probably doesn't even know about the story since he doesn't read the newspapers or watch the news.
#103
Admin
Originally Posted by classicman2
I don't agree with that. A President can be in control of his administration and not every detail of what's going on. I seriously doubt that any President has ever known everything that's going on in their adminstration.

#105
Admin
Originally Posted by classicman2
Of the attributes of left-wingers - common sense is not one of them.
That has been amply demonstrated on this forum.

BTW: The same holds true for right-wingers.
That has been amply demonstrated on this forum.

BTW: The same holds true for right-wingers.

#106
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by General Zod
If Rove leaked this then he should certainly get in trouble. Appropriate punishment for this particular thing would be a slap on the wrist as has been done with others in the past who have done similiar things. However, being Rove and the left's completely hatred of him i'm sure people will be happy with nothing less than him being fired and executed (not necessarily in that order), Bush impeached, and Sean Hannity drawn and quartered (just because).

#107
Administrator
Originally Posted by classicman2
Of the attributes of left-wingers - common sense is not one of them.
That has been amply demonstrated on this forum.

BTW: The same holds true for right-wingers.
That has been amply demonstrated on this forum.

BTW: The same holds true for right-wingers.
#108
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by classicman2
I don't agree with that. A President can be in control of his administration and not every detail of what's going on. I seriously doubt that any President has ever known everything that's going on in their adminstration.
"[Karl Rove] wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."

#109
Originally Posted by classicman2
I don't agree with that. A President can be in control of his administration and not every detail of what's going on. I seriously doubt that any President has ever known everything that's going on in their adminstration.

Last edited by CRM114; 07-12-05 at 12:47 PM.
#111
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming Bush did know. So he lied to the American people. What's new? Every president in the history of the Republic has, one time or another (some many times), lied (correction) to the American public - beginning with the first president when Washington said he wasn't a politician.

Last edited by classicman2; 07-12-05 at 12:58 PM.
#112
DVD Talk Ruler
Originally Posted by classicman2
Assuming Bush did know. So he lied to the American people. What's new? Every president in the history of the Republic has, one time or another (some many times), liked to the American public - beginning with the first president when Washington said he wasn't a politician. 

#113
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts

This whole thing is much ado about nothing and it's fun to see people getting so unhinged about it.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/49903.htm
SCANDAL IMPLOSION
July 12, 2005 -- I WROTE a column on Oct. 10, 2003, about the strange case of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Wilson was the former ambassador sent by the CIA to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium in Africa; Plame, his CIA agent wife.
In that column, I offered my speculation of what an administration official might have said to a journalist to explain just how Wilson — a Clinton administration official — got the assignment in the first place: "Administration official: 'We didn't send him there. Cheney's office asked CIA to get more information. CIA picked Wilson . . . Look, I hear his wife's in the CIA. He's got nothing to do. She wanted to throw him a bone.' "
Hate to say I told you so, but . . .
According to this week's Newsweek, Karl Rove said something very similar indeed to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper:
In the Cooper e-mails just surrendered by Time to the prosecutor looking into the Plame case, "Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by . . . CIA Director George Tenet . . . or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, [Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "
There's no mistaking the purpose of this conversation between Cooper and Rove. It wasn't intended to discredit, defame or injure Wilson's wife. It was intended to throw cold water on the import, seriousness and supposedly high level of Wilson's findings.
While some may differ on the fairness of discrediting Joseph Wilson, it sure isn't any kind of crime.
Rove was suggesting to Cooper that that folks lower down in the CIA than its own director commandeered the process so that the husband of one of their own could get the gig. And the husband in question then went and misrepresented his findings to various journalists (The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof) and then in his own now-famous Times op-ed.
This Rove-Cooper conversation discredits Wilson, not Plame. In fact, nothing we know so far was done either with the purpose of exposing or even the knowledge that these remarks would be exposing an undercover CIA operative.
But Plame's undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case. How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's own biography online (see cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html)?
So if the offense wasn't against Plame, what of the offense against Wilson? There was no offense. As many of Joe Wilson's own hottest defenders would no doubt argue in relation to President Bush, exposing a liar is not only not a crime, it's a public service.
And Wilson lied. Repeatedly.
First off, Wilson long denied he was recommended for the job by his wife: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he writes in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence actually found the memo in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the job.
There were other lies as well. Wilson's own report was far from definitive in any way on the question of whether Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger — thus giving the lie to his later bald claim that he came back insisting there was no link.
"The report on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002," said the Senate Select Committee, "did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."
Thus, Rove was telling Cooper the truth. According to one of Cooper's e-mails, "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger . . ."
A few days later, for reasons that remain unexplained, the United States said it could no longer stand by the claim in the 2003 State of the Union that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa.
But that retraction of Bush's words remains hotly controversial. As a 2004 British inquiry chaired by Lord Butler put it: "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded."
What isn't controversial is this: Karl Rove didn't "out" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to intimidate Joe Wilson. He was dismissing Joe Wilson as a low-level has-been hack to whom nobody should pay attention. He was right then, and if he said it today, he'd still be right.
And if Valerie Plame wants to live a quiet spy life, she should stop having her picture taken by society photographers and stop getting stories written about her on the front page of the Times.
E-mail: [email protected]
July 12, 2005 -- I WROTE a column on Oct. 10, 2003, about the strange case of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Wilson was the former ambassador sent by the CIA to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium in Africa; Plame, his CIA agent wife.
In that column, I offered my speculation of what an administration official might have said to a journalist to explain just how Wilson — a Clinton administration official — got the assignment in the first place: "Administration official: 'We didn't send him there. Cheney's office asked CIA to get more information. CIA picked Wilson . . . Look, I hear his wife's in the CIA. He's got nothing to do. She wanted to throw him a bone.' "
Hate to say I told you so, but . . .
According to this week's Newsweek, Karl Rove said something very similar indeed to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper:
In the Cooper e-mails just surrendered by Time to the prosecutor looking into the Plame case, "Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by . . . CIA Director George Tenet . . . or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, [Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "
There's no mistaking the purpose of this conversation between Cooper and Rove. It wasn't intended to discredit, defame or injure Wilson's wife. It was intended to throw cold water on the import, seriousness and supposedly high level of Wilson's findings.
While some may differ on the fairness of discrediting Joseph Wilson, it sure isn't any kind of crime.
Rove was suggesting to Cooper that that folks lower down in the CIA than its own director commandeered the process so that the husband of one of their own could get the gig. And the husband in question then went and misrepresented his findings to various journalists (The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof) and then in his own now-famous Times op-ed.
This Rove-Cooper conversation discredits Wilson, not Plame. In fact, nothing we know so far was done either with the purpose of exposing or even the knowledge that these remarks would be exposing an undercover CIA operative.
But Plame's undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case. How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's own biography online (see cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html)?
So if the offense wasn't against Plame, what of the offense against Wilson? There was no offense. As many of Joe Wilson's own hottest defenders would no doubt argue in relation to President Bush, exposing a liar is not only not a crime, it's a public service.
And Wilson lied. Repeatedly.
First off, Wilson long denied he was recommended for the job by his wife: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he writes in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence actually found the memo in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the job.
There were other lies as well. Wilson's own report was far from definitive in any way on the question of whether Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger — thus giving the lie to his later bald claim that he came back insisting there was no link.
"The report on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002," said the Senate Select Committee, "did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."
Thus, Rove was telling Cooper the truth. According to one of Cooper's e-mails, "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. He [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger . . ."
A few days later, for reasons that remain unexplained, the United States said it could no longer stand by the claim in the 2003 State of the Union that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa.
But that retraction of Bush's words remains hotly controversial. As a 2004 British inquiry chaired by Lord Butler put it: "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded."
What isn't controversial is this: Karl Rove didn't "out" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to intimidate Joe Wilson. He was dismissing Joe Wilson as a low-level has-been hack to whom nobody should pay attention. He was right then, and if he said it today, he'd still be right.
And if Valerie Plame wants to live a quiet spy life, she should stop having her picture taken by society photographers and stop getting stories written about her on the front page of the Times.
E-mail: [email protected]
Last edited by bhk; 07-12-05 at 01:19 PM.
#115
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why let people go to jail to protect you?
#116
So your point is that since Wilson gives the name of his wife on a biography, she is not covert? What is the logic I'm missing? I can understand if Wilson said in his biography something like:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover operative, and has two sons and two daughters."
But it says:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
The only person that linked her to being a CIA operative was Robert Novak.
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover operative, and has two sons and two daughters."
But it says:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
The only person that linked her to being a CIA operative was Robert Novak.
#117
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'it was, [Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "
#118
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bfrank
bhk- it that is the case why not just admit it when it happened?????? Why let people go to jail to protect you?
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
makes this paragraph true:
But Plame's undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case. How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's own biography online (see cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html)?
I don't see anywhere in the biography where it states that she is an undercover CIA agent. Apparently, printing her name as being married to Wilson is the same as telling everyone she is an undercover CIA agent. Interesting logic.
#119
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114
So your point is that since Wilson gives the name of his wife on a biography, she is not covert? What is the logic I'm missing? I can understand if Wilson said in his biography something like:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover operative, and has two sons and two daughters."
But it says:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
The only person that linked her to being a CIA operative was Robert Novak.
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover operative, and has two sons and two daughters."
But it says:
"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
The only person that linked her to being a CIA operative was Robert Novak.
#120
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, printing her name as being married to Wilson is the same as telling everyone she is an undercover CIA agent. Interesting logic.
#121
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I smell a classic rope-A-dope coming on and it's going to be fun watching the dems and their troops in the lamestream media's faces when it blows up in them.
#122
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhk
Read the entire article, Rove never names her as an undercover agent. But what is interesting logic is that dems have leaked and given up names of real undercover agents in the past and the only thing that happened to them is that they were re-elected as a dem.
#123
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Rove is ever prosecuted and found guilty, Bush should immediately pardon him and give him a raise.
The press and the dems in Wash would have a stroke and it would be great to watch.
The press and the dems in Wash would have a stroke and it would be great to watch.

#125
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by bhk
Read the entire article, Rove never names her as an undercover agent. But what is interesting logic is that dems have leaked and given up names of real undercover agents in the past and the only thing that happened to them is that they were re-elected as a dem.